Preview

Strict Liability Action V. Negligence Action

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
788 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Strict Liability Action V. Negligence Action
When it comes down to the basics strict liability actions and negligence actions go hand and hand. When the elements and defenses come into play the actions may differ, however, where one might not apply the other might apply depending on the extent of care taken by the tortfeasor.
Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring others or the property belonging to others. This would be if somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonable careful person would use under the circumstances or somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances. Fault is essential in a negligence tort and is determined by basic elements. In negligence action there are four elements that play a large determining role. The four elements include duty of care, breach of duty by the tortfeasor, causation of injury to the victim and damages to the victim. The elements of negligence action work together in tort law to determine the level of negligence of the tortfeasor. The first element is the legal duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct in order to protect other from unreasonable risk of harm. The second element is the breach of duty by the tortfeasor failing to conform to a certain standard of conduct. The third element is the causation of injury and establishing a casual connection between the conduct and the injury, which comes in two components, actual cause or proximate cause. The final element of negligence action is damages to the victim being actual damages. This element is proving that a monetary figure can be attached to the negligence claim. The damages can come as compensatory damage, punitive damages, or damages attributable to actual loss of physical property. With all these elements in place fault is irrelevant.
Strict liability holds the tortfeasor responsible for his or her behavior regardless of fault. If the tortfeasor is found to be absolutely liable,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Strict liability is a liability ascribed to a manufacturer or seller of a defective or dangerous product regardless of any fault or negligence.…

    • 365 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Long Island Railroad). Negligence is the legal term given to actions that breach the duty of care that one owes another according to the law. The court considered that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to Helen Palsgraf, and therefore no negligence was committed. The court found that the risk of the harm was unforeseeable. According to The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, “If the risk of harm is foreseeable, then the duty exists” (2014, pg.224). The court found that the actions which occurred were not only unforeseeable in to the objective observer, but also to Helen Palsgraf. This is to say that the risk was unforeseeable to an objective or reasonably subjective person in her position. The court found that the proximity of the plaintiff to the cause of action was irrelevant. Long Island Railroad actions or inactions caused no negligence to Helen Palsgraf. Even if there was negligence toward someone else, this is not a basis for a claim by Helen…

    • 893 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    There are also several types of negligent torts. Two of which are: duty to rescue and duty to invitees. Intentional torts against consist of battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of privacy. The key word in all of these intentional torts is intent or purpose to cause harm to another. Intentional torts against property include trespass of land, nuisance, conversion, and trespass to personal property. Intent and purpose are also why these are considered intentional. The key difference between these two torts is that one is against people and the other is a misuse of another’s property. An individual has to purpose commit these acts. Negligent torts consist of different types of duties. Duty is when a person with a legal duty to another is required to act, reasonably, under the circumstances to avoid harming the other person. Some examples of this are duty to rescue and duty to invitees. Duties are basically an obligation that one person is legally bound to perform for another. In comparing the two types of torts we find that intentional torts are torts that people commit against other people. Negligence also others but it is a failure to perform that causes the injury or unjust…

    • 1667 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Law 421 week 2 work

    • 1527 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Cause in fact: Except for the breach of duty by the tortfeasor, would the injured party have suffered damages?…

    • 1527 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Alabama Tort Law is the only truly comprehensive resource on tort law in Alabama. With expert discussion of proof requisites and defenses, it covers all the elements of each tort actionable under Alabama law. It provides the information necessary to determine if there is a case and what is needed to prove or defend it. Alabama Tort Law not only provides up-to-date coverage of relevant case law and analysis, it also includes comprehensive appendices with practical material, including checklists and sample complaints for frequently encountered topics.…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Related Reading: What Is the Difference Between a Negligence Action & a Strict Liability Action?…

    • 1540 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    “Negligence contains five elements; duty, breach of duty, cause in effect, proximate cause, and actual damages.” (McGrady). Though each element contains certain questions that must be answered about the conduct in question. For Duty, did the tortfeasor owe a duty of care to the injured party? The conductor or the commuters did not owe a direct duty of care to Palsgraf. Did the tortfeasor fail to exercise reasonable care? A breach of duty was not sustained. There was not a general duty to act. The conductor displayed reasonable care by helping the commuter onto the train. For cause and effect, would the injured party have suffered damages? Since, the conductor helped the commuter up causing the package to explode caused injuries to Palsgraf, there is a cause and effect. For the proximate cause, was there a legally recognized and close-in-proximity link between the breach of duty and the damages suffered by the injured party? The proximate cause doesn’t place Palsgraf in close proximity to the actions carried out by the conductor. For actual damages, did the injured party suffer some physical harm that resulted in identifiable losses? Finally, there were actual damages. Palsgraf suffered a severe injury according to the case study. To answer the original question, all of the other elements of a negligence tort was not satisfied in this case. The second and…

    • 1076 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Limitation Act 1980 - claim must be made 6 years of the breach of duty (s2) or within 3 years of the date an injury became known…

    • 1389 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tort Reform in the Us

    • 1193 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Tort law is a type of law that is designed to offer remedies to civil wrongs. Unlike contractual damages that occur, where responsibility is predetermined, tort law is designed for someone who is legally injured to be able to recover damages from the person who is deemed legally responsible, or liable for such injuries. Tort law is broken down into three main categories, negligence, strict liability, and intentional tort. In negligence tort one is accused of causing damages through their carelessness. After accusation of negligence the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant had duty of care, and that a breach of duty had occurred that caused the damages. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes someone responsible for damages caused by their actions (e.g. product liability). Intentional tort is much like negligence, but instead of one causing damages by accident, there was reckless action or intent to cause the damages that occurred (e.g. assault, battery). Tort cases are based on common law, which is laws that have been developed through court decisions, i.e. precedent. However, in certain cases tort law can also be based on statutory law laid out by the legislature. It is up to the court to decide which rule should take a higher standing depending on the case.…

    • 1193 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Contributory and comparative negligence are legal concepts that are slightly similar in meaning. These are two separate legal concepts that minimize the liability of the defendant (McWay, 2010). The biggest difference between the two is that with comparative negligence there is usually some type of monetary compensation. But with contributory negligence, there won’t usually be any type of monetary compensation.…

    • 543 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Amputation Mishap

    • 1386 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Negligence and malpractice fall under the tort laws definition. According to Guido (2010), “Torts are civil wrongs, not based on contracts, but on personal transgressions in that the responsible person performed an action incorrectly or omitted a necessary action” (p. 92). Tort laws are based on fault and in a health-care setting, tort laws are the most common.…

    • 1386 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The tort of negligence is the most widely used in law and therefore arguably the most important. The scope of negligence covers such a range of factual situations that establishing a set of rules for finding liability has proved extremely difficult for judges. To establish negligence the claimant must prove that the defendant firstly owed the claimant a duty of care, that the duty was breached and that damage occurred due to the breach. This may seem straight forward but problems arise in establishing that each one of these factors applies. The first and often most difficult of these areas is establishing a duty of care.…

    • 2101 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    `Negligence` is defined in Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort as `the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant, to the plaintiff` .There is no one single definition of the word `tort` or tortious liability` that is acceptable to the author as being complete enough to tell a reader what `tort` or tortious liability` is all about. One of the better definitions is given by Winfield and reads as follow: ` tortious liability` arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach…

    • 1869 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Law of Negligence

    • 932 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Negligence is a legal concept in the common law legal systems mostly applied in tort cases to achieve monetary compensation for physical and mental injuries.…

    • 932 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Torte Law

    • 2366 Words
    • 10 Pages

    When a duty of care is involved, and that duty is breached, this usually results in negligence. Tort liability in negligence is when a party has a duty of due care with regard to others, breaches the duty and as a result foreseeable harm occurs and is proximately caused by the breach. Damages and/or injury must also exist for negligence to have occurred . The foreseeability of harm alone, however, does not establish a duty of care or a duty to act as held in Perl v. Camden LBC (1983) .…

    • 2366 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays